Recording Industry Association of America: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
cleanup. fixed, replaced, reworked cites, summarized file-sharing sect. with (corrected) lead from main article. made workforhire more neutral. rmv tags. |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{redirect|RIAA|RIAA equalization|RIAA equalization}} |
{{redirect|RIAA|RIAA equalization|RIAA equalization}} |
||
{{articleissues|cleanup=October 2007|POV=December 2007}} |
|||
[[Image:RIAA logo.png|right|thumb|The RIAA Logo.]] |
[[Image:RIAA logo.png|right|thumb|The RIAA Logo.]] |
||
The '''Recording Industry Association of America''' (or '''RIAA''') is a [[trade group]] that represents the [[recording industry]] in the [[United States]]. Its members consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, which the RIAA claims "create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States." |
The '''Recording Industry Association of America''' (or '''RIAA''') is a [[trade group]] that represents the [[recording industry]] in the [[United States]]. Its members consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, which the RIAA claims "create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States."<ref name="RiaaAboutUs">{{cite web |url=http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php |title="Who We Are" |publisher=RIAA website}}</ref> |
||
The RIAA was formed in 1952 primarily to administer the [[RIAA equalization]] curve, a technical standard of [[frequency]] response applied to |
The RIAA was formed in 1952 primarily to administer the [[RIAA equalization]] curve, a technical standard of [[frequency]] response applied to vinyl records during manufacturing and playback. The RIAA has continued to participate in creating and administering technical standards for later systems of music recording and reproduction, including [[magnetic tape]], [[compact audio cassette|cassette]] tapes, [[digital audio tape]]s, [[CD]]s and software-based digital technologies. The RIAA also participates in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and [[royalties]], and is responsible for [[RIAA certification|certifying]] [[Music recording sales certification|gold and platinum albums and singles]] in the USA. |
||
According to its website, the RIAA also works to protect [[copyright|intellectual property rights]] worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists, performs research about the music industry, and monitors and reviews relevant laws, regulations and policies.<ref name="RiaaAboutUs" /> |
|||
The RIAA also participates in the collection, administration and distribution of music [[licenses]] and [[royalties]]. |
|||
== Company structure and sales== |
|||
The association is responsible for [[RIAA certification|certifying]] [[Music recording sales certification|gold and platinum albums and singles]] in the USA. For more information about sales data see [[lists of best-selling albums|List of best selling albums]] and [[List of best selling singles]]. |
|||
The RIAA is led by [[Mitch Bainwol]], who has been [[Chairman]] and [[CEO]] since 2003. He is assisted by [[Cary Sherman]], the President of the Board of Directors. The board of directors consists of 26 members of the board, drawn mostly from the big four members of the RIAA.<ref>[http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=who_we_are_board Board of the RIAA] RIAA website.</ref> The association represents over 1,600 [[List of RIAA member labels|member labels]], which are private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, and which collectively create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US. The largest and most influential of the members are the "Big Four": [[EMI]], [[Sony BMG Music Entertainment]], [[Universal Music Group]] and [[Warner Music Group]]. The total annual net income from members of the RIAA in 2006 was reported as $11.5 billion, reflecting a decline from $12.5 billion in 1996.<ref>[http://76.74.24.142/6BC7251F-5E09-5359-8EBD-948C37FB6AE8.pdf 2006 Year-End Manufacturers’ Unit Shipments and Dollar Value charts] on the [http://www.riaa.com/keystatistics.php RIAA website]</ref> |
|||
In 2008 it became known that the RIAA has been withholding roughly $400 million from artists for several years now. The RIAA gained the money through lawsuits claiming to defend the rights of artists, although none of the artists who's music was illigally downloaded has received any of the settlement money. |
|||
The RIAA's stated goals<ref name="RiaaAboutUs" /> are: |
|||
#to protect [[copyright|intellectual property rights]] worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; |
|||
#to perform research about the music industry; |
|||
#to monitor and review relevant laws, regulations and policies. |
|||
== Company structure and Sales== |
|||
The RIAA is led by [[Mitch Bainwol]], who has been [[Chairman]] and [[CEO]] since 2003. He is assisted by [[Cary Sherman]], the President of the Board of Directors. The board of directors consists of 26 members of the board, drawn mostly from the big four members of the RIAA.<ref>[http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=who_we_are_board Board of the RIAA] (RIAA website)</ref> |
|||
The RIAA represents over 1,600 [[List of RIAA member labels|member labels]], which are private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, and which collectively create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US. The largest and most influential of the members are the "Big Four". |
|||
* [[EMI]] |
|||
* [[Sony BMG Music Entertainment]] |
|||
* [[Universal Music Group]] |
|||
* [[Warner Music Group]] |
|||
The total annual net income from members of the RIAA is reported to be $11.5 billion<ref>[http://www.riaa.com/keystatistics.php] (RIAA website)</ref>, reflecting a decline since a high of $14.5 billion in 1996. |
|||
== Sales certification == |
== Sales certification == |
||
{{main|RIAA certification}} |
{{main|RIAA certification}} |
||
The RIAA operates an certification system for albums which sell larges number of copies. The program originally began in 1958, with a Gold award for singles and albums which reach US$ 1 million sales. The criteria was changed in 1975 to be based on the number of copies sold, with singles and albums selling 500,000 copies awarded the Gold award. In 1976, a Platinum award was added for one million sales, and in 1999, a Diamond award, for ten million sales. In 2004, the RIAA added a branch of certification for digital sales, such as files downloaded via [[iTunes]]. In 2006, digital ringtones were added to this branch of certification.<ref>[http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=historyx "History Of The Awards"], RIAA website.</ref> A searchable database of gold and platinum certifications is available at the RIAA website. The RIAA also operates a similar system for [[Spanish language]] music sales, called ''Los Premios De Oro y Platino''.<ref>[http://www.riaa.com/whatwedo.php "What We Do"], RIAA website.</ref> |
|||
The RIAA operates an award program for albums which sell a large number of copies.<ref>{{cite web |
|||
|url=http://www.riaa.com/gp/default.asp |
|||
|title=Gold and Platinum (Index) |
|||
|author=RIAA Website |
|||
}}</ref> The program originally began in 1958, with a ''Gold Award'' for singles and albums which reach US$ 1 million sales. The criteria was changed in 1975 to be based on the number of copies sold, with singles and albums selling 500,000 copies awarded the Gold Award. In 1976, a ''Platinum Award'' was added for one million sales, and in 1999 a ''Diamond Award'' for ten million sales. The awards are open to both RIAA members and non-members.<ref>{{cite web |
|||
|url=http://www.riaa.com/gp/certification/default.asp |
|||
|title=Gold and Platinum Certification |
|||
|author=RIAA Website |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
On www.riaa.com, under the ''gold & platinum''-link they have a searchable but poorly updated database, where you can search artists and records that went gold/platinum. |
|||
The RIAA also operates a similar program for [[Spanish language]] music sales, called ''Los Premios Awards''. |
|||
===Digital sales certification=== |
|||
In 2004, the RIAA added a branch of certification for legal downloads, such as files downloaded via [[iTunes]]. In 2006, digital ringtones were added to this branch of certification. The certification criteria for the digital downloads is currently as follows: |
|||
<br /> |
|||
Silver: 100,000<br /> |
|||
Gold: 500,000<br /> |
|||
Platinum: 1,000,000<br />{{Fact|date=December 2007}} |
|||
==Efforts against file-sharing== |
==Efforts against file-sharing== |
||
{{main|RIAA efforts against file-sharing}} |
{{main|RIAA efforts against file-sharing}} |
||
The RIAA opposes [[copyright infringement]] through [[file-sharing]], saying that music distributed via the internet using [[peer-to-peer]] software results in a reduction of profits of around $4.2 billion for the music industry worldwide, harming consumers, record labels, retailers and artists.<ref>[http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp "Anti-Piracy"], RIAA Website</ref> It sees lawsuits as one way to combat the problem of internet-based copyright infringement. RIAA president Cary Sherman's view has been that the large number of lawsuits filed has "arrested the growth of a runaway solution that would have grown worse and worse."<ref>Declan McCullagh, [http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020487,39271312-2,00.htm "RIAA's next moves in Washington"], ''[[ZDNet]]'', 26 May 2006.</ref> The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF), a non-profit advocacy and legal organization, says that the RIAA has "filed, settled, or threatened" legal actions against more than 20,000 people on this issue.<ref>Unknown author, [http://www.eff.org/riaa-v-people "RIAA v. People"], EFF website, undated. Accessed March 8, 2008.</ref> |
|||
{{Cleanup-restructure|date=October 2007}} |
|||
The '''[[Recording Industry Association of America]]''' is a fierce opponent of [[copyright infringement]] through [[file-sharing]], The organization particularly targets music files distributed via the [[Internet]] using [[peer-to-peer]] software, a practice which the RIAA claims results in a reduction of profits of $4.2 billion per year for the music industry worldwide, which supposedly harms consumers, record labels, retailers and artists.<ref name="RIAA_AntiPiracy">{{cite web |url=http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp |title=Issues: Anti-Piracy |accessdate=2007-04-02 |author=RIAA }}</ref><!-- this was about calculating damages, not their supposed lost sales. Very misleading here. Moving it down to lawsuits where it belongs. --> |
|||
[[Hilary Rosen]], the RIAA's president and chief executive officer from [[1998]] to [[2003]], was an outspoken critic of peer to peer file sharing {{Fact|date=February 2007}}, and under her direction, the RIAA waged an aggressive legal campaign trying to eliminate file-sharing worldwide. Rosen has since expressed "concern that the lawsuits have outlived most of their usefulness," and that music devices should try "to work better together."<ref>''[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/for-the-record-for-what-_b_22177.html For the Record, for What It's Worth],'' by [[Hilary Rosen]], the [[Huffington Post]], ''4 June 2006''</ref> |
|||
The RIAA sees lawsuits as one way to combat the problem of Internet-based copyright infringement. RIAA President [[Cary Sherman]] claims that the large number of lawsuits filed has "arrested the growth of a runaway solution that would have grown worse and worse."<ref>''[http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020487,39271312-2,00.htm RIAA's next moves in Washington]'', [[ZDNet]], 26 May 2006</ref>. |
|||
[[As of July 2006]], the RIAA has brought lawsuits against around 20,000<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php |title=How To Not Get Sued for File Sharing |accessdate=2007-04-03 }}</ref> people in the United States suspected of distributing copyrighted works, and have settled approximately 2,500 of the cases.{{Fact|date=June 2007}} |
|||
===Definition of Copyright Infringement=== |
|||
The RIAA and its member groups argue that [[Internet]] distribution of music, without the consent of the owner of the copyright to that music, harms the careers of current and future artists, both because record companies would have fewer sales, and also because musicians, singers, songwriters and producers depend heavily on royalties and fees gained from their music. This statement is valid for starting artists, as their profits depend heavily on album sales. Established artists receive most of their profits from their performances, tours or concerts. {{Fact|date=December 2007}} |
|||
The RIAA takes a broad view about what constitutes copyright infringement. In [[2006]], the RIAA claimed that ripping [[CDs]] and backing them up does not constitute [[fair use]], because tracks from ripped CDs do not maintain the controversial [[Digital Rights Management|DRM]] to prevent the music file from being copied. They argue that there is no evidence that any of the relevant media are "unusually subject to damage" and that "even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."<ref>''[http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use]'', EFF Deep Links, ''15 February 2006''</ref> |
|||
===File-sharing lawsuits=== |
|||
On [[December 7]] [[1999]], the RIAA sued [[Napster]] for providing a service which enabled users to download MP3 files off other users' machines. The RIAA claims that Napster "facilitates piracy of music on an unprecedented scale."<ref>[http://www.riaa.com/news/filings/napster_faq.asp#action ''Frequently Asked Questions — Napster and Digital Music''], RIAA Website</ref> In 2002 the RIAA also sued [[Aimster]], which provided a similar service. Napster became [[bankruptcy|bankrupt]] during the case; and has since been taken over by [[Roxio]] and provides a download service which is sanctioned by the RIAA. |
|||
Between 2002 and 2003, the RIAA attempted to get [[Verizon]] to disclose the identities of file-sharing customers based on a simple one-page [[subpoena]]. Verizon attorney [[Sarah Deutsch]] challenged the subpoena's validity on procedural and privacy grounds.<ref> [http://news.com.com/2008-1082-955417.html Verizon's copyright campaign] Declan McCullagh </ref> In December of 2003, this failed when a federal appeals court overturned a lower court order. The RIAA claims this procedure was sanctioned by the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]], but the appeals court ruled that the DMCA regulation applies only to data actually hosted by an [[Internet service provider]], rather than data on a customer's computer. The [[United States Supreme Court]] declined to review this ruling in 2004. As a result, the RIAA must now file individual civil suits against each accused file-sharer, and the ISP and alleged file-sharer have more legal avenues for preventing disclosure of their identity, making the entire process much more expensive, slow and complicated.<ref>[http://www.subpoenadefense.org/ Subpoena Defense]</ref> The court opinion was written by Judge [[Douglas Ginsburg]]. |
|||
In 2005, [[Santangelo v. RIAA|Patricia Santangelo]] made the news by challenging the RIAA's lawsuit against her. While she succeeded in getting the lawsuit against her dismissed two years later, her children were then sued. A default judgment entered against her daughter Michelle for $30,750 for failing to respond to the lawsuit, was subsequently vacated. <ref>"[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/07/default-judgment-against-michelle.html Default Judgment against Michelle Santangelo vacated; RIAA seeks $513 in attorneys' fees]" Recording Industry vs. The People, July 19, 2007.</ref> |
|||
Another defendant, Tanya Andersen, a 41-year-old single mother living in [[Oregon]], filed counterclaims against the RIAA including a [[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act|RICO]] charge. The RIAA requested deposition of her 10 year-old daughter.<ref>"[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/riaa-insists-on-deposing-tanya.html RIAA Insists on Deposing Tanya Andersen's 10-year-old daughter]", Recording Industry vs The People, "23 March 2007"</ref>. Subsequently the RIAA dropped the case, leaving open only the question of attorneys fees and the RIAA's liability under Ms. Andersen's counterclaims.<ref>"[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/06/riaa-drops-its-case-against-tanya.html RIAA Drops its Case Against Tanya Andersen]" Recording Industry vs. The People, June 4, 2007</ref>. Thereafter, Ms. Andersen sued the RIAA, the record company plaintiffs, Safenet (MediaSentry), and Settlement Support Center LLC, for malicious prosecution, <ref>"[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/06/tanya-andersen-sues-riaa-for-malicious.html Tanya Andersen Sues RIAA for Malicious Prosecution in Oregon]" Recording Industry vs The People, June 25, 2007</ref>, subsequently amending her complaint to turn the case into a class action. <ref>"[http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117971146.html?categoryId=16&cs=1 RIAA Faces Serious Piracy Lawsuit]", Variety.com, August 30, 2007; "[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/29/ap4065797.html Woman Targets RIAA With Lawsuit]", Forbes.com, August 29, 2007; "[http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070817-riaa-faces-first-class-action-suit.html RIAA faces possible class action over suing the innocent]", Ars Technica, August 17, 2007; "[http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13077 RIAA named in first class action]", p2pnet, August 16, 2007; "[http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/17/1728225 Class Action Initiated Against RIAA]", Slashdot, August 17, 2007. For link to .pdf file of amended complaint: "[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/08/tanya-andersen-brings-class-action.html Tanya Andersen Brings Class Action Against RIAA]", Recording Industry vs. The People, August 16, 2007. </ref> |
|||
In 2006, the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Public Citizen]], the [[ACLU]] of Oklahoma Foundation, and the [[American Association of Law Libraries]] submitted an [[amicus curiae]] brief in support of the motion for attorneys fees that has been made by Deborah Foster in ''Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster'', in federal court in Oklahoma, requesting that attorney's fees be awarded to the defendant and alleging a pattern of inadequate investigation and abusive legal practices by the RIAA.<ref> [http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/08/eff-aclu-american-association-of-law.html EFF, ACLU, American Association of Law Libraries, Public Citizen, ACLU of Oklahoma, Come to Aid of Deborah Foster, File Amicus Brief in Support]</ref> |
|||
The RIAA asked the Court not to accept the ''amicus curiae'' brief, claiming that the "Movants attempt to paint a false picture of Plaintiffs and the recording industry run amok"<ref> [http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/08/riaa-opposes-motion-for-leave-to-file.html RIAA-lawyer claims the brief accuses the recording industry to run amok] </ref>. On February 6, 2007, the attorney's fee motion was granted. <ref>[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/02/judge-grants-debbie-fosters-attorneys.html "Judge Grants Debbie Foster's Attorneys Fees Motion in Capitol v. Foster"; Recording Industry vs. The People]</ref><ref>[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070208021454284 "For the Cynics, an Antidote: The Order in Capitol v. Foster"; Groklaw]</ref><ref>[http://p2pnet.net/story/11246 "Victory for RIAA Victim"; p2pnet.net]</ref><ref>[http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070207-8786.html "Victim of RIAA "driftnet" awarded attorneys' fees"; Ars Technica]</ref> On July 16, 2007, the Court ordered the RIAA to pay Ms. Foster $68,685.23 in attorneys fees.<ref>"[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/07/judge-awards-68000-in-attorneys-fees.html Judge Awards $68,685.23 in Attorneys Fees Against RIAA in Capitol v. Foster]" Recording Industry vs. The People, July 16, 2007</ref> |
|||
On [[December 21]] [[2006]], the RIAA filed a lawsuit for Russian owned and operated website [[AllOfMP3|AllOfMP3.com]] in the amount of $1.65 [[1000000000000 (number)|trillion]]. This number was derived from multiplying 11 million songs with [[statutory damages]] of $150,000 per song. The RIAA could not obtain jurisdiction over this Russian website. |
|||
A critical case, which may not only determine the fate of the RIAA's litigation campaign, but also impact the scope of copyright across the internet, is ''Elektra v. Barker''.<ref>[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com#Elektra_v_Barker Elektra v. Barker]</ref> In that case, Tenise Barker, a 29-year-old nursing student in the Bronx, moved to dismiss the RIAA's complaint for lack of specificity, and on the ground that merely "making available" does not constitute a copyright infringement.<ref>[http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/thresq/spotlight/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003535810 "Is 'Making Available' Copyright Infringement?" Hollywood Reporter ESQ]</ref> In opposing Ms. Barker's motion, the RIAA argued that "making available" is indeed a copyright infringement. Upon learning of the RIAA's argument, which sought to expand copyright law, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the U.S. Internet Industry Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) submitted ''amicus curiae'' briefs supporting Ms. Barker's motion and rebutting the RIAA's argument. The [[Motion_Picture_Association_of_America|Motion Picture Association of America]], in turn, submitted a brief supporting the RIAA. The U.S. Department of Justice submitted a "Statement of Interest" refuting one argument made by the EFF, but taking no position on the "making available" issue; the DOJ stated that it has never prosecuted anyone for "making available". <ref>[http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elektra_barker_usstatement Statement of Interest of US Government in Elektra Barker], page 5, footnote 3.</ref> The case was argued before Judge Kenneth M. Karas in Manhattan federal court on January 26, 2007, who indicated that he will decide the "making available" issue. As of September 2, 2007, the parties are awaiting the Court's decision. Meanwhile, the same issue has been briefed in a more recent case, ''Warner v. Cassin''<ref>[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/index-of-litigation-documents.html#Warner_v_Cassin Warner v. Cassin]</ref>, also in the Southern District of New York, but in the Westchester Division. |
|||
In November, 2006, a Judge in a Brooklyn Federal court upheld the legal theory behind a defense claiming that the RIAA's damages theory — which calls for aggregating [[statutory damages]] of $750 per song in its lawsuits — is unconstitutional, since the record companies' actual damages are less than $0.70 per song.<ref>[http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_lindor_061109OrderGrantMotLvAmend UMG v. Lindor, November 9, 2006, Decision (pdf)]</ref><ref>[http://www.bizreport.com/2006/11/riaa_under_fire_for_750_lawsuits_over_70_cent_songs.html Federal judge orders RIAA to justify damages sought link 1]</ref> |
|||
On Oct. 4, 2007 [[Jammie Thomas]]'s case filed against for illegal sharing of 24 songs on Kazaa was adjudicated, with a $222,000 ($9,250 per song) verdict awarded to the RIAA. <ref name=riaaverdict>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071006/music_nm/musicindustry_lawsuit_dc Music industry wins song-download case]</ref> |
|||
In Texas, July 2007, Rhonda Crain (''Sony v. Crain''<ref>"[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/index-of-litigation-documents.html#SONY_v_Crain SONY v. Crain]"</ref>) sought leave to add a counterclaim against the RIAA<ref>[http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=sony_crain_070703MotAmendAnsCounterclaims Pike & Fischer Internet & Law Regulation]</ref> for knowingly engaging in "one or more overt acts of unlawful private investigation" in the RIAA case against Crain.<ref>[http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070704-riaa-sued-for-using-illegal-investigatory-practices.html ''RIAA sued for using illegal investigatory practices''], by Ken Fisher, Ars Technica, ''4 July 2007''</ref> |
|||
In an Oklahoma case, ''[[Capitol Records v. Deborah Foster]]'',<ref>"[http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm#Capitol_v_Foster Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster]"</ref> the RIAA was forced to dismiss a case after a woman filed a motion for leave to make a motion for summary judgment and attorneys fees, stating that she had nothing to do with file sharing and that her only nexus to the case was that she had paid for internet access. The judge ruled that the RIAA's withdrawal of the case -- after one and a half years of litigation -- did not immunize it from possible liability for attorneys fees, holding that the defendant was a "prevailing party" under the Copyright Act.<ref>[http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capitol_foster_dismissal July 13, 2006, Order and Decision]</ref> The Court subsequently ruled that defendant was entitled to be reimbursed for her reasonable attorneys fees, since the RIAA's pursuit of its case was, at best, "marginal", and was being pursued to extract a settlement from someone who was clearly known not to be the direct infringer.<ref>[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/02/judge-grants-debbie-fosters-attorneys.html "Judge Grants Debbie Foster's Attorneys Fees Motion in Capitol v. Foster" in Recording Industry vs. The People]</ref> The Court noted that the mere fact that Ms. Foster was a person who paid for an internet access account was not a basis for a copyright infringement lawsuit against her. Ms. Foster's motion for attorneys fees had been supported by an ''amicus curiae'' brief of the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Public Citizen]], the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], the [[American Association of Law Libraries]], and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma. |
|||
Other instances in which the RIAA was known to have been forced to back out of a case to avoid a loss, are ''[[Priority Records v. Brittany Chan]]'' in Michigan, ''Virgin Records v. Tammie Marson''<ref>"[http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm#Virgin_v_Marson Virgin Records v. Tammie Marson]"</ref> in California, and ''Elektra v. Wilke''<ref>"[http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm#Elektra_v_Wilke Elektra v. Wilke]"</ref> in Illinois. |
|||
The evidence of the effectiveness of the suits is not conclusive. Recent research suggests that the lawsuits have reduced the number of files large file-sharers offer but have had limited effect on those who only offer small number of files (typically less than 1000) and have had negligible effect on general availability of files at any random time.<ref>''[Bhattacharjee, S., Lertwachara, K, Gopal, R. and Marsden, J, "Impact of Legal Threats on Online Music Sharing Activity: An Analysis of Music Industry Legal Actions", 49 (2006) Journal of Law and Economics 91]''</ref> |
|||
===Methodology of legal action=== |
|||
The RIAA names defendants based on ISP identification of the subscriber associated with an [[IP address]],<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/27/earlyshow/leisure/music/main1166218.shtml |title=Mom Fights Recording Industry |author=[[CBS News]] |accessdate=2007-04-02 |date=2005}}</ref> and as such do not know any additional information about a person before they sue. After an Internet subscriber's identity is discovered, but before an individual lawsuit is filed, the subscriber is typically offered an opportunity to settle. The standard settlement is a payment of several thousand dollars to the RIAA, and an agreement not to engage in file-sharing of RIAA music. |
|||
The RIAA's policy and method of suing individuals for copyright infringement is continually criticized. [[Brad Templeton]] of the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] has called the RIAA's lawsuits "[[spamigation]]"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000072.html |title=New word: Spamigation |accessdate=2007-04-02 |last=Templeton |first=Brad |authorlink=Brad Templeton |date=[[2004-04-22]] }}</ref> and implied they are done merely to [[Barratry|intimidate]] people. |
|||
The RIAA typically seeks $750 statutory damages per song file. In the Brooklyn lawsuit ''UMG v. Lindor'',<ref>"[http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm#UMG_v_Lindor UMG v. Lindor]"</ref> the defendant argued that the RIAA's damage theory was unconstitutional, because it sought 1071 times the actual 70 cents reduction of profits per song (the prevailing wholesale price of a download). The court ruled that this defense was not frivolous, was based upon case law and legal scholarship, and deserved to be heard.<ref>"[http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_lindor_061109OrderGrantMotLvAmend UMG v. Lindor (November 9, 2006, decision of Judge David G. Trager]"</ref> |
|||
The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], [[American Civil Liberties Union]] and [[Public Citizen]] oppose the ability of the RIAA and other companies to "strip Internet users of anonymity without allowing them to challenge the order in court".<ref>{{cite press release |title=Citing Right to Anonymity Online, ACLU Asks Boston Court to Block Recording Industry Subpoena |publisher=American Civil Liberties Union |date=[[2003-09-29]]|url=http://www.aclu.org/privacy/anon/15590prs20030929.html |accessdate=2007-04-02 }}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |title=Record Industry Cuts Corners in Crusade Against File-Sharers |publisher=Public Citizen |date=[[2004-02-02]] |url=http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1636 |accessdate=2007-04-03 }}</ref> |
|||
The RIAA's criticized methods of identifying individual users has led to the issuing of [[subpoena]]s to a dead grandmother,<ref>''[http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050204-4587.html I sue dead people]'', Ars Technica, ''[[4 February]] [[2005]]''</ref>, an elderly computer novice,<ref>{{cite news |title=Grandmother piracy lawsuit dropped |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3140160.stm |publisher=BBC News |date=[[2003-09-25]] |accessdate=2007-04-03 }}</ref> a woman with [[multiple sclerosis]],<ref>"[http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm#Elektra_v_Schwartz Elektra v. Schwartz]"</ref> and even those without any computer at all.<ref>[http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060424-6662.html ''RIAA sues computer-less family''], by Anders Bylund, [[Ars Technica]], ''24 April 2006''</ref> Sometimes the RIAA continues to sue even in these cases, or seeks to discontinue without [[prejudice (law)|prejudice]] (and thereby avoid compensating the defense for legal fees).<ref>[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/judge-denies-riaa-motion-to-dismiss_21.html Elektra v. Santangelo"]</ref><ref>[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/judge-denies-riaa-motion-to-dismiss.html Warner v. Stubbs]</ref><ref>[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/05/riaa-backs-down-in-mississippi-case.html Elektra v. Dennis]</ref> |
|||
After learning that one alleged copyright infringer had died, the RIAA offered the deceased man's family a period of sixty days to grieve the man's death before they began to depose members of his family for the suit against his estate.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Warner v. Scantlebury |court=Eastern District of Michigan District Court |date=[[2006-08-01]] |url=http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=warner_scantlebury_motion |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
The RIAA has also brought lawsuits against children, some as young as 12.<ref>''[http://news.com.com/RIAA+settles+with+12-year-old+girl/2100-1027_3-5073717.html RIAA settles with 12-year-old girl]'', CNet News, ''9 September 2003''</ref> |
|||
As of February, 2007 the RIAA began sending letters accusing internet users of sharing files and directing them to a web site, (http://www.p2plawsuits.com/), where they can make "discount" settlements payable by credit card. The letters go on to say that anyone not settling will have lawsuits brought against them. Typical settlements are upwards of $3,000. This new strategy was formed because the RIAA's legal fees were cutting into the income from settlements. <ref>{{cite news |first=Brock |last=Read |title=Record Companies to Accused Pirates: Deal or No Deal? |url=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i28/28a03101.htm |work=The Chronicle of Higher Education |page=A31 |date=2007-03-16 |accessdate=2007-04-02 |language=english }}</ref> |
|||
===Settlement programs=== |
|||
Between September 2003 and April 2004, the RIAA, through its [[Clean Slate Program (RIAA)|Clean Slate Program]], claimed to give those accused of copyright infringement [[amnesty]] "on the condition that they refrain from future infringement,"<ref>''[http://www.riaa.com/issues/cleanSlate.asp Clean Slate Program]'', RIAA Website</ref> plus delete the infringing material. |
|||
The RIAA states this was an educational initiative about illegal file sharing, and was stopped due to increased public awareness in the issues. The program may also have been stopped due to the low number of takers.<ref>1,108 people signed up to the Clean Slate program, according to ''[http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?section=business&id=1152 RIAA Drops 'Clean Slate']'', by Fraser Lovatt, Digital-Lifestyles.org, ''21 April 2004''</ref> |
|||
There is some doubt about whether the RIAA can offer this protection, critics have pointed out that this program may not have offered any protection from lawsuits by record companies and music publishers.<ref>''[http://blogs.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001435.php Fake "Clean Slate" Gone - How About a Real One?]'', [[Electronic Frontier Foundation|EFF]] Deep Links, ''April 17, 2004''</ref> In addition, some Attorneys claimed the offer of amnesty was misleading, and legal documents provided by the RIAA "provides ... no promise not to sue you."<ref>Ira Rothken, ''[http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112428,00.asp Consumers Strike Back, Sue RIAA]'', PCWorld.com, ''September 11, 2003''</ref> |
|||
A lawsuit brought in California state court, ''Parke v. RIAA'', alleged the RIAA had committed fraudulent business practices by offering the program.<ref>''[http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/Parke_v_RIAA/Parke_RIAA_Complaint.pdf ''Parke v. RIAA'', Complaint]'', ''September 9, 2003''</ref><ref>Ira Rothken, ''[http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112428,00.asp Consumers Strike Back, Sue RIAA]'', PCWorld.com, ''September 11, 2003''</ref> |
|||
The "Clean Slate" program is now discontinued. |
|||
In February, 2007, the RIAA launched an 'early settlement program' directed to ISP's and to colleges and universities, urging them to pass along letters to subscribers and students offering early "settlements", prior to the disclosure of their identities, which, if accepted, would save the RIAA the expense of litigation to procure the identities. The settlement letters urged ISP's to preserve evidence for the benefit of the RIAA and invited the students and subscribers to visit an RIAA website for the purpose of entering into a "discount settlement" payable by credit card.<ref>"[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/02/riaa-adopts-new-policy-offers-pre-doe.html RIAA Adopts New Policy, offers Pre-Doe settlement option if ISP Holds Logs Longer, Asks ISP's to Correct Identification Mistakes]" Recording Industry vs. The People, February 13, 2007.</ref>. By March 2007, the focus had shifted from ISP's to colleges and universities. <ref>"[http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117960319.html?categoryid=18&cs=1 RIAA targets university students]" (Variety.com)</ref><ref>{{cite news |first=Brock |last=Read |title=Record Companies to Accused Pirates: Deal or No Deal? |url=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i28/28a03101.htm |work=The Chronicle of Higher Education |page=A31 |date=2007-03-16 |accessdate=2007-04-02 |language=english }}</ref><ref>[http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=4e74bd26-4c1b-4c88-8d84-d915653c9459 "Recording industry battles piracy"] by Elizabeth Lauten, ''[[The East Carolinian]]'' ([[East Carolina University]]), [[April 4]] [[2007]]</ref> |
|||
===Validity of lawsuit claims=== |
|||
In press reports, the RIAA makes the assertion that every unauthorized copy of a song represents a lost sale. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050308/1752252_F.shtml |title=How the RIAA Does Math: Why You Might Be A $50 Million Felon |accessdate=2007-04-09 |author=Techdirt}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2114507/fr/rss/ |title=How Much Is Your Stolen Music Worth? |accessdate=2007-04-09 |author=Slate}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050504/0235236.shtml |title=RIAA's Excessive Loss Claims Unconstitutional? |accessdate=2007-04-09 |author=Techdirt}}</ref> This claim is highly criticized due to the fact that a single download of a song may not correspond to the loss of a potential sale, and because this metric conflicts with the economic law of [[supply and demand]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://techdirt.com/articles/20070205/011102.shtml |title=Now The RIAA Wants You To Believe That You Should Be Paying Much, Much More For CDs |author=techdirt}}</ref>. A large number of studies conducted since the RIAA began its campaign against peer-to-peer file-sharing have concluded that losses incurred per download range from negligible to very small.<ref>http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21view.html?ex=1258693200&en=a210357f5dcc8523&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt ''Does a Free Download Equal a Lost Sale?''], by Daniel Gross, [[The New York Times]], ''21 November 2004''</ref><ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9C02E2D91139F936A35757C0A9629C8B63 ''A Heretical View of File Sharing''], by John Schwartz, [[The New York Times]], ''5 April 2004''</ref> |
|||
===Unfair legal practices=== |
|||
In one file-sharing case, the RIAA has been referred by the defendants as "a cartel acting [[Collusion|collusively]] in violation of the [[United States antitrust law|antitrust laws]] and of [[public policy]], by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in accordance with a uniform agreement, and through common lawyers, thus overreaching the bounds and scope of whatever copyrights they might have". In ''Arista v. Limewire'' this was as well alleged by the defendants and referred to in the defendants [[counterclaim]]. |
|||
See, e.g. ''UMG v. Lindor''<ref>"[http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/08/riaa-moves-to-strike-copyright-misuse.html RIAA Moves to Strike "Copyright Misuse" Affirmative Defense in UMG v. Lindor]", Recording Industry vs. The People, August 29, 2007; "[http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/29/2326214 Record Company Collusion a Defense to RIAA Case?]", Slashdot, August 30, 2007 </ref>, where the RIAA has moved to "strike" those accusations. The motion to strike the charges is pending, and is scheduled to be taken under consideration by the Court on October 2, 2007. See also ''Arista vs. Limewire''<ref>"[http://www.ilrweb.com/ILRPDFs/arista_limewire_060925answercounterclaim.pdf] Limewire counterclaim in Arista vs. Limewire"</ref> for a detailed overview. |
|||
==High-profile lawsuits== |
==High-profile lawsuits== |
||
In October [[1998]], the Recording Industry Association of America filed a lawsuit in the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in [[San Francisco]] claiming the [[Diamond Multimedia]] [[Rio PMP300]] player violated the 1992 [[Audio Home Recording Act]]. The [[Rio PMP300]] was significant because it was the second portable consumer MP3 digital audio player released on the market. The three judge panel ruled in favor of Diamond, paving the way for the development of the MP3 portable player market.<ref> |
In October [[1998]], the Recording Industry Association of America filed a lawsuit in the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in [[San Francisco]] claiming the [[Diamond Multimedia]] [[Rio PMP300]] player violated the 1992 [[Audio Home Recording Act]]. The [[Rio PMP300]] was significant because it was the second portable consumer MP3 digital audio player released on the market. The three judge panel ruled in favor of Diamond, paving the way for the development of the MP3 portable player market.<ref>Elizabeth Clampet, [http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/139091 "Court OKs Diamond Rio MP3 Player"], InternetNews, 16 June, 1999. Accessed March 8, 2008.</ref> The RIAA has also filed suit in 2006 to enjoin digital [[XM Satellite Radio]] from enabling its subscribers from playing songs it has recorded from its satellite broadcasts.<ref>Joseph Palenchar, [http://www.twice.com/article/CA6336520.html "XM Faces The Music In RIAA Copyright Suit"], ''[[TWICE]]'', 22 May, 2006. Accessed March 8, 2006.</ref> It is also suing several Internet radio stations.<ref>Unknown author, [http://www.out-law.com/page-1778 "RIAA sues Internet radio stations"], Out-Law.com, July 2001. Accessed March 8, 2008.</ref> |
||
==The "work made for hire" issue== |
|||
RIAA has also filed suit in 2006 to enjoin digital [[XM Satellite Radio]] from enabling its subscribers from playing songs it has recorded from its satellite broadcasts.<ref>''[http://www.twice.com/article/CA6336520.html XM Faces The Music In RIAA Copyright Suit]'', by Joseph Palenchar, TWICE, ''22 May 2006''</ref> It is also suing several Internet radio stations.<ref>''[http://www.out-law.com/page-1778 RIAA sues Internet radio stations]'', Out-Law.com, ''July 2001''</ref> |
|||
In 1999, [[Stanley M. Glazier]], a Congressional staff attorney, inserted, without public notice or comment, substantive language into the final markup of a "technical corrections" section of copyright legislation, classifying many music recordings as "[[Work for hire|works made for hire]]," thereby transferring some copyright interests from artists to their record labels. Shortly afterwards, Glazier was hired as Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Legislative Counsel for the RIAA, which supported the change when it came to light. The battle over the disputed provision led to the formation of the [[Recording Artists' Coalition]], which successfully lobbied for repeal of the change.<ref> Brad King, [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/08/38129?currentPage=all "Rule Reversal: Blame It on RIAA"], ''Wired'', August 10, 2000.</ref> |
|||
==The "Work Made for Hire" controversy== |
|||
In 1999, [[Stanley M. Glazier]], a Congressional staff attorney, inserted, without public notice or comment, substantive language into the final markup of a "technical corrections" section of copyright legislation, classifying many music recordings as "[[Work for hire|works made for hire]]," thereby stripping artists of their copyright interests and transferring those interests to their record labels.<ref> {{cite web |url=http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/08/38129?currentPage=all |title=Rule Reversal: Blame It on RIAA |accessdate=2007-04-09 |author=Wired}}</ref> Shortly afterwards, Glazier was hired as Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Legislative Counsel for the RIAA, which vigorously defended the change when it came to light. The battle over the disputed provision led to the formation of the [[Recording Artists' Coalition]], which successfully lobbied for repeal of the change. |
|||
==Legislation and regulation today== |
==Legislation and regulation today== |
||
As of 2006 the RIAA was supporting several pieces of legislation in the United States which it believes help it to prevent copyright infringement. Proposed legislation included in this support would, according to [[PublicKnowledge]] and the EFF, prevent new ways to use media content, and could prevent customers from recording music, even if covered by [[fair use]]. This would effectively create a radio [[broadcast flag]] rule. The RIAA has supported legislation in the past which also attempted to introduce a radio broadcast flag.<ref>Alex Curtis, [http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/98 "'New and Improved' Draft Broadcast Flag Bill: This Time for TV and Radio"], ''PublicKnowledge'', 20 January 2006.</ref><ref>Fred von Lohmann, [http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004340.php "New Senate Broadcast Flag Bill Would Freeze Fair Use"], EFF ''Deep Links'', 20 January, 2006. Accessed 8 March, 2008.</ref> |
|||
The RIAA is also involved in opposing legislation which involves the [[free speech]] rights of artists, such as restrictions on sales of recordings which might be considered controversial or which have the [[Parental Advisory]] label.<ref>''[http://www.riaa.com/issues/freedom/riaa.asp Freedom of Speech]'', RIAA Website</ref> |
|||
The RIAA is also involved in opposing legislation which involves the [[free speech]] rights of artists, such as restrictions on sales of recordings which might be considered controversial or which have the [[Parental Advisory]] label.<ref>[http://www.riaa.com/issues/freedom/riaa.asp "Freedom of Speech"], RIAA website.</ref> |
|||
==Cultural references== |
|||
* [["Weird Al" Yankovic]]'s single "[[Don't Download This Song]]" [[satire|satirizes]] the RIAA's lawsuits against copyright infringers. |
|||
* The [[March 4]], [[2007]] [[FoxTrot]] strip also satirized the RIAA's lawsuits, where Jason tried to teach his iguana Quincy to download music, because "it's one thing for them to go after single moms, widows, grandmothers, dead people and children... but sue an '''iguana'''?! That'd be insane!"<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20070306064752/http://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2007/03/04/ FoxTrot comic from March 4, 2007]</ref> |
|||
* The [[Machinae Supremacy]] song "Legion of Stoopid" refers to the company as the "Recording Industry Assholes of America". |
|||
* [[MC Lars]]'s single "[[Download This Song]]" criticized the RIAA and the music industry in general, mentioning the RIAA's lawsuits against "little kids downloading hit songs." |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 00:10, 9 March 2008
The Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA) is a trade group that represents the recording industry in the United States. Its members consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, which the RIAA claims "create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States."[1]
The RIAA was formed in 1952 primarily to administer the RIAA equalization curve, a technical standard of frequency response applied to vinyl records during manufacturing and playback. The RIAA has continued to participate in creating and administering technical standards for later systems of music recording and reproduction, including magnetic tape, cassette tapes, digital audio tapes, CDs and software-based digital technologies. The RIAA also participates in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties, and is responsible for certifying gold and platinum albums and singles in the USA.
According to its website, the RIAA also works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists, performs research about the music industry, and monitors and reviews relevant laws, regulations and policies.[1]
Company structure and sales
The RIAA is led by Mitch Bainwol, who has been Chairman and CEO since 2003. He is assisted by Cary Sherman, the President of the Board of Directors. The board of directors consists of 26 members of the board, drawn mostly from the big four members of the RIAA.[2] The association represents over 1,600 member labels, which are private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, and which collectively create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US. The largest and most influential of the members are the "Big Four": EMI, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. The total annual net income from members of the RIAA in 2006 was reported as $11.5 billion, reflecting a decline from $12.5 billion in 1996.[3]
Sales certification
The RIAA operates an certification system for albums which sell larges number of copies. The program originally began in 1958, with a Gold award for singles and albums which reach US$ 1 million sales. The criteria was changed in 1975 to be based on the number of copies sold, with singles and albums selling 500,000 copies awarded the Gold award. In 1976, a Platinum award was added for one million sales, and in 1999, a Diamond award, for ten million sales. In 2004, the RIAA added a branch of certification for digital sales, such as files downloaded via iTunes. In 2006, digital ringtones were added to this branch of certification.[4] A searchable database of gold and platinum certifications is available at the RIAA website. The RIAA also operates a similar system for Spanish language music sales, called Los Premios De Oro y Platino.[5]
Efforts against file-sharing
The RIAA opposes copyright infringement through file-sharing, saying that music distributed via the internet using peer-to-peer software results in a reduction of profits of around $4.2 billion for the music industry worldwide, harming consumers, record labels, retailers and artists.[6] It sees lawsuits as one way to combat the problem of internet-based copyright infringement. RIAA president Cary Sherman's view has been that the large number of lawsuits filed has "arrested the growth of a runaway solution that would have grown worse and worse."[7] The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit advocacy and legal organization, says that the RIAA has "filed, settled, or threatened" legal actions against more than 20,000 people on this issue.[8]
High-profile lawsuits
In October 1998, the Recording Industry Association of America filed a lawsuit in the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco claiming the Diamond Multimedia Rio PMP300 player violated the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act. The Rio PMP300 was significant because it was the second portable consumer MP3 digital audio player released on the market. The three judge panel ruled in favor of Diamond, paving the way for the development of the MP3 portable player market.[9] The RIAA has also filed suit in 2006 to enjoin digital XM Satellite Radio from enabling its subscribers from playing songs it has recorded from its satellite broadcasts.[10] It is also suing several Internet radio stations.[11]
The "work made for hire" issue
In 1999, Stanley M. Glazier, a Congressional staff attorney, inserted, without public notice or comment, substantive language into the final markup of a "technical corrections" section of copyright legislation, classifying many music recordings as "works made for hire," thereby transferring some copyright interests from artists to their record labels. Shortly afterwards, Glazier was hired as Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Legislative Counsel for the RIAA, which supported the change when it came to light. The battle over the disputed provision led to the formation of the Recording Artists' Coalition, which successfully lobbied for repeal of the change.[12]
Legislation and regulation today
As of 2006 the RIAA was supporting several pieces of legislation in the United States which it believes help it to prevent copyright infringement. Proposed legislation included in this support would, according to PublicKnowledge and the EFF, prevent new ways to use media content, and could prevent customers from recording music, even if covered by fair use. This would effectively create a radio broadcast flag rule. The RIAA has supported legislation in the past which also attempted to introduce a radio broadcast flag.[13][14]
The RIAA is also involved in opposing legislation which involves the free speech rights of artists, such as restrictions on sales of recordings which might be considered controversial or which have the Parental Advisory label.[15]
See also
References
- ^ a b ""Who We Are"". RIAA website.
- ^ Board of the RIAA RIAA website.
- ^ 2006 Year-End Manufacturers’ Unit Shipments and Dollar Value charts on the RIAA website
- ^ "History Of The Awards", RIAA website.
- ^ "What We Do", RIAA website.
- ^ "Anti-Piracy", RIAA Website
- ^ Declan McCullagh, "RIAA's next moves in Washington", ZDNet, 26 May 2006.
- ^ Unknown author, "RIAA v. People", EFF website, undated. Accessed March 8, 2008.
- ^ Elizabeth Clampet, "Court OKs Diamond Rio MP3 Player", InternetNews, 16 June, 1999. Accessed March 8, 2008.
- ^ Joseph Palenchar, "XM Faces The Music In RIAA Copyright Suit", TWICE, 22 May, 2006. Accessed March 8, 2006.
- ^ Unknown author, "RIAA sues Internet radio stations", Out-Law.com, July 2001. Accessed March 8, 2008.
- ^ Brad King, "Rule Reversal: Blame It on RIAA", Wired, August 10, 2000.
- ^ Alex Curtis, "'New and Improved' Draft Broadcast Flag Bill: This Time for TV and Radio", PublicKnowledge, 20 January 2006.
- ^ Fred von Lohmann, "New Senate Broadcast Flag Bill Would Freeze Fair Use", EFF Deep Links, 20 January, 2006. Accessed 8 March, 2008.
- ^ "Freedom of Speech", RIAA website.
External links
- RIAA official website
- The RIAA Radar Find out if a specific CD was released by a RIAA member
- The Subpoena Defense Alliance - provides information on court decisions related to identity disclosure and the Verizon case in particular
- How the RIAA litigation process works - Legal explanation by attorney Ray Beckerman